Supreme Court Allows State Appeal in TADA Act Case — Cross Examination Rights of Accused Clarified. The court ruled that once an accomplice's pardon is forfeited, he reverts to the status of an accused, and his evidence cannot be used against co-accused.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved a criminal appeal by the State of Maharashtra concerning the rights of the accused to cross-examine an accomplice who had been granted a conditional pardon under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The accomplice, Riyaz Ahmed Siddique, had initially been pardoned to testify against the accused in the murder case of Pradeep Jain. However, after he failed to comply with the conditions of the pardon, the Special Public Prosecutor issued a certificate withdrawing the pardon. The Designated Court allowed the defense to cross-examine Siddique, which the State contested. The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of Sections 306, 307, and 308 of the Cr.P.C., concluding that once the pardon was forfeited, Siddique reverted to the status of an accused, and his prior testimony could not be used against the co-accused. The court emphasized that the right to cross-examine is contingent upon the witness's status, and since Siddique was no longer a prosecution witness, the defense's request was unjustified. The appeal was allowed, and the order permitting cross-examination was set aside.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure - Cross Examination Rights - Accused's Right to Cross Examine Accomplice - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 306, 307, 308 - The court held that once an accomplice's pardon is forfeited, he reverts to the status of an accused and his evidence cannot be used against co-accused, thus denying the right to cross-examine him is justified (Paras 24-24).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the accused has a right to cross examine an accomplice whose pardon was withdrawn.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by the State of Maharashtra, ruling that the Designated Court erred in permitting the defense to cross-examine the accomplice after the withdrawal of his pardon. The court clarified that the accomplice, once the pardon was forfeited, reverted to the status of an accused, and his evidence could not be used against the co-accused.

Law Points

  • Cross examination rights
  • tender of pardon
  • accomplice testimony
  • withdrawal of pardon
  • statutory rights of accused
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2010 LawText (SC) (10) 2

Criminal Appeal No. 1925 of 2008

2010-10-05

R.M. Lodha, P. Sathasivam

State of Maharashtra

Abu Salem Abdul Kayyum Ansari & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal regarding the rights of accused to cross-examine an accomplice.

Remedy Sought

State of Maharashtra sought to challenge the order allowing cross-examination of the accomplice.

Filing Reason

The accomplice's pardon was withdrawn, and the State contested the right to cross-examine him.

Previous Decisions

The Designated Court allowed the defense to cross-examine the accomplice despite the withdrawal of pardon.

Issues

Whether the accused has a right to cross-examine an accomplice whose pardon was withdrawn.

Submissions/Arguments

The State argued that once the pardon was forfeited, the accomplice could not be cross-examined as he reverted to the status of an accused. The defense contended that the evidence recorded prior to the withdrawal of pardon should remain available for cross-examination.

Ratio Decidendi

Once an accomplice's pardon is forfeited, he reverts to the status of an accused, and his evidence cannot be used against co-accused, thus denying the right to cross-examine him is justified.

Judgment Excerpts

The court held that once an accomplice's pardon is forfeited, he reverts to the status of an accused and his evidence cannot be used against co-accused. The Designated Court seriously erred in treating the respondent no. 3 (Riyaz Ahmed Siddique) hostile witness.

Procedural History

The State of Maharashtra filed an appeal against the Designated Court's order allowing the defense to cross-examine the accomplice after the withdrawal of his pardon.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 306, 307, 308
  • Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 132, 133, 154, 315
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition for Regularisation of Ad Hoc Teacher's Services - Management Directed to Submit Proposal for Approval. The court held that the management must submit a proposal for approval of the petitioner's services to the D...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal and Restores Special Appeal for Decision on Merits. The High Court's dismissal of the appeal was deemed inappropriate as it did not consider the merits of the case.